UPDATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTIC RUBRICS FOR COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT (DARCA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shift towards outcomes-based assessment in higher education has necessitated the exploration and development of valid measurement tools. Given this trend, the current project seeks to develop a set of generic analytic rubrics for the purpose of assessing learning outcomes in the core competency areas of design, communication, teamwork, problem analysis and investigation. This paper will provide an update on the original paper presented at CEEA 2015, in which the approach to rubric development for communication, design and teamwork was discussed. The current paper will detail the process of testing the communication, design and teamwork rubrics. In particular, it will report on the progress achieved in shadow testing, where teaching assistants and/or course instructors with grading experience (“assessors”) are asked to evaluate samples of student work using selected rows from the rubrics. The results of shadow testing will be presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".